State Engineering Corporation, G.T. Road, Phagwara, District Kapurthala through partner Beant singh.<br /> Complainant.<br /> versus<br /> 1. Technology Development Company Enterprises Software Solutions Ltd., 437-438, Old OPH Road, , Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore, -560051, through its Managing Director..<br /> 2. M/s Lekhi Computers, B-X-346, Near Jain Girls Senior secondary School, chowk, Hira Halwai, Ludhiana141008, through its partner/Proprietor.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Present : Sh. Mohit Kapoor counsel for complainant,<br /> Sh. Rajesh Lekhi opposite party No.2 in person,<br /> Opposite party No.1 - Exparte.<br /> JUDGMENT (SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT )<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by State Engineering Corporation through its Partner Beant Singh complainant against opposite parties i.e. Technology Development Company Enterprises Software Solutions Ltd. through its Managing Director manufacturer and M/s Lekhi Computers, Ludhiana as dealer seeking direction against them for refund of amount of Rs.36400/- i.e. cost of the machine alleged to have manufacturing defects and for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that complainant is a partnership concern manufacturing machine parts and having business premises at G.T. Road, Phagwara and Beant Singh is partner of said complainant firm and is fully competent to file the present complaint. Opposite party No.1 is Company manufacturing and selling time and attendance machines i.e. machine used to store time and attendance of the workers of the Industrial concern through its authorized agents/dealers spread all over the Country with its head office at 437-438, Old OPH Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore. Opposite party No.2 is the dealer of opposite party No.1. It is averred that opposite party No.2 approached complainant at Phagwara and induced it to purchase one machine for industrial complex and that installed time and attendance machine M/c FTA 7272 manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 2013 dated 7.10.2005 for a sum of Rs.36400/-. It is alleged that there was frequent break down in the functioning of the machine after three months of its purchase. He had been contacting opposite party No.2 on phone number of times to get the machine checked and repaired but opposite party No.2 did not care at all. Opposite party No.2 after a period of one month conveyed the complainant to send the machine at the shop of opposite party NO.2 at Ludhiana for repair and ultimately same was sent by complainant on 27.2.2007 but the same was not returned within a week as promised, but after about four months machine again developed censar fault and not censoring the finger prints . Complainant again filed complaint with the opposite party No.2 a number of times to get the machine rectified but it failed to do so. So the complainant vide letter dated 20/7/2007 sent back the machine to the opposite party No.2 aand requested him to refund the amount of Rs.35400/- to the complainant but the Company failed to refund the amount and machine was sent back to the complainant on 1/10/07. It is alleged that machine was having inherent defects and was not working smoothly and as such there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.1 failed to appeared despite service and was proceeded exparte. However, opposite party No.2 appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim This fact is not disputed complainant purchased one FTA 7272 M/C with one year warranty on 7/10/2005 worth Rs.36400/- from opposite party No.2 as dealer of opposite party No.1. Handling instructions were also given to the complainant and got five staff members of the complainant Co. trained for its operation. It is further pleaded that after two months in the winter season it was complained that M/c was sensing the workers in the morning quickly whereas in the evening at off time, it was taking more time. The reason traced out was torn fingers of the workers during grinding work. Opposite party No.2 purchased a new version FTA-7272B M/c from the Company. In the last week of December, opposite party NO.2 upgraded their M/C with new version. This M/c accepted fingers and card combination. Fifty cards were also provided to the party. The difference in these models was Rs.3500/- and fifty cards worth Rs.1200/- were supplied to the complainant free of cost from the profit of the opposite party No.2. It is further alleged that after four months one dropped the M/c and it stopped its voice operation whereas it was marking attendance . Opposite party No.2 fixed the speaker and then it started voice. . It is further pleaded that in June 2006, opposite party No.2 got a call that M/c was not down loading the date on the computer and the said complaint was attended in two days and problem was traced out that there was virus in the computer and complainant reinstalled the windows as per advise of opposite party No.2 and the opposite party NO.2 installed the M/c. In September 2006, he was intimated that machine was taking too much time in acepting the finger and found that during normal cleaning process, someone used to clean M/c like computer and rubbed the scanner regularly with some cloth/towel to clean it. Complainant Company used even Collin solution on it before informing opposite party No.2. The condition of URU scanner was worst and the same was replaced whereas the Companies do not give replacement of rubbed scanner. Opposite party No.2 used scanner of a new M/c from his own pocket. The warranty of the machine also expired on 6/10/2006. Complainant was also informed that Company opposite party No.1 has appointed new dealer and advised complainant to contact new dealer so as to get services further. But the complainant did not avail the services of new dealer. On or around 16.1.2007, again opposite party No.2 was informed about defect/problem in the machine though warranty period was expired and that he advised the complainant to contact the new dealer as the services were over. During his visit to Jalandhar opposite party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and asked that it was his last visit and after that complainant would have to send the M/c to the new dealer of the Company in case of any fault and the fault was detected that network card in the computer was not configured properly and same was rectified by the computer engineer... In the month of April 2007, he was again called by the complainant as the M/c was not accepting proximity cards. Opposite party No.2 advised complainant to contact new dealer of the Company and on 23/4/07, complainant sent the machine at the premises of opposite party No.2 and same was sent to the Company on the same day and they changed some parts and M/c started working.Rs.2500/- were directly billed to the complainant by the Company for the parts and service . Again in the month of July, 2007, complainant informed opposite party No.2 that M/c is taking too much time to register the worker but opposite party No.2 advised complainant to send the machine to the Company as the Company provides services after warranty period is over. But the machine was again sent to him and he found that someone rubbed the scanner with cloth for cleaning and its scanning capability became poor and the scanner got damaged and the company told the opposite party No.2 approximately Rs.5000/-as charges for scanner. Ultimately complainant agreed to pay it. The M/c was got repaired and Company charged Rs.4160/- for sensor whereas M/c cover was replaced by the opposite party No.2. The machine was sent to the complainant on 1/10/2007 alongwith bill of Rs.6000/- vide bill No.5 dated 1/10/2007 but the complainant failed to pay the said amount. It is however, alleged that he is not liable to refund the price of the machine as if the customer felt defects in the product then Company is liable for the same nor the dealer. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.<br /> 4. In support of its version complainant Company produced in evidence affidavit of Beant Singh Ex.C1, documents Ex.C2 to C6.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party No.2 produced in evidence copy of E-mail Ex.R1, copy of affidavit of Rajesh Lekhi Ex.R2.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2 in person and also perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for complainant has contended before us that complainant purchased one machine FTA 7272 for industrial purpose from opposite party No.2 on 7/10/2005 for a sum of Rs.36400/- and same was manufactured by opposite party No.1 in which inherent defects were found on account of its repeated break down and amounted to deficiency in service. On the other hand opposite party No.2 has contended that undoubtedly he supplied FTA 7272 M/c with one year warranty to the complainant on 7/10/2005 worth Rs.36400/- and he gave them handling instructions and got five staff members of the complainant Company trained for its operation. He always rendered services on receipt of the complaints regarding machine supplied to it.. He further contended that he purchased a new version 7272B M/c from the Company and that in the last week of December , he upgraded the M/c machine with new version. This M/c accepted fingers and card combination. Fifty cards were also provided to the complainant. The difference in these models was Rs.3500/- and fifty cards worth Rs.1200/- were supplied to the complainant free of cost from his pocket. After four months, the worker of the complainant Company dropped machine and stopped its voice operation whereas it was marking attendance , so he went there and fixed the speaker. According to him, he even replaced the scanner after warranty period was over and sent M/c to the complainant on 1/10/07 alongwith bill ofRs.6000/- which was not paid. He further urged that he rendered services to the complainant out of way and if there was manufacturing defect in the machine, the same is to be removed by the Company opposite party No.1. There was no deficiency in service on his part.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2. We find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. Complainant has articulated its grievances in the affidavit of Beant Singh partner of complainant Company ex.C1 about purchase of the machine from opposite party No.2 manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide invoice Ex.C6 dated 7/10/05 and that he complained about defects of the machine after period of one month. The machine was also sent to opposite party No.2 for effecting repairs and same was received back by the complainant after about four months and same is clearly reflected in the letters Ex.C3 and C4. Complainant has also stated that even after re-installation of the machine, it was not in proper working order and had developed censor fault and not censoring the finger prints. The machine was again sent to opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 20/7/07 with the request to refund the amount of Rs.36400/- but the machine was again returned back to the complainant on 1/10/07. No doubt, opposite party No.2 has also alleged that on receipt of the complaint in June 2006 that M/c is not down loading the data on computer and he asked the complainant to get the widows re-installed and on doing so, he installed the machine and in September he received complaint that M/c was taking too much time for accepting finger and further found that during normal cleaning process, someone used to clean M/c like computer and rubbed the scanner regularly with some cloth/towel to clean it. Complainant Company used even Collin solution on it before informing opposite party No.2. Even then scanner was replaced whereas manufacturer company does not give replacement of rubbed scanner. He has also deposed that his dealership with the manufacturer Company had expired and new dealer was appointed by the Company. So complainant should get new maintenance contract with new dealer/Company. He also testifies that despite warranty period was over, he attended complaints of the complainant even in April 2007 and in July 2007. He further found that someone rubbed the scanner with some cloth/towel for cleaning and its scanning capability became poor and the scanner got damaged. . According to him the Company told the opposite party No.2 approximately Rs.5000/-as charges for scanner. Ultimately complainant agreed to pay it. The M/c was got repaired and Company charged Rs.4160/- for sensor whereas M/c cover was replaced by the opposite party No.2. The machine was sent to the complainant on 1/10/2007 alongwith bill of Rs.6000/- vide bill No.5 dated 1/10/2007. It will therefore, be seen that opposite party No.1 manufacturer Company failed to rebut the allegations of complainant about inherent manufacturing defects in the machine despite its repairs effected by opposite party No.2 and change of parts and this fact is also admitted by opposite party No.2 in the last para of the written statement.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we are of the considered opinion that opposite party No.1 manufacturer company is squarely liable for refund of price of the machine having manufacturing defects i.e. Rs.36400/- whereas both the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are held liable for compensation of Rs.3000/- to be shared equally for deficiency in service on account of inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant including costs of litigation within a month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : (Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 29.4.2008 Member President.